It is a tricky - but not uncommon - scenario for a defence team to advise on in regulatory cases: dishonesty is denied but found proved against the registrant at a substantive hearing and they are going to maintain that denial at the review hearing.

In mythical Scotland, where Haggis run wild in the hills and where the Loch Ness Monster lurks beneath, whisky is the water of life and the small sacrifice made for these great gifts is known as the Angels’ share.

In the recent decision of Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd -v- Dring (for and on behalf of Asbestos Victim Support Groups Forum UK) [2019] UKSC 38, the Supreme Court has held that parties who have not entered process will be entitled to access written material lodged with the court, making it easier for non-parties to obtain a far wider range of documents than previously.

Not wishing to recant too many tales from the fireside, but I remember one time in court back in my trainee days in a road traffic case. The Judge became increasingly irascible as evidence was lead from expert witnesses and he ultimately commented along the lines that it defeated him why parties insisted on instructing so many expert witnesses when it is the duty of the court to consider the available factual evidence and come to its decision. Fast forward a few years and the recent decision in Beckham v McCabe [2019] SC EDIN 65 highlights the perils of relying on the opinion of expert witnesses in (what would appear to be) the absence of good quality factual evidence.

The recent Professional Negligence case Soofi v Dykes, which saw Lord Doherty in the Outer House of the Court of Session focus heavily on the Defender’s file notes in order to reach his decision, serves to reinforce the importance of keeping detailed records of client interactions.